[jubilanti]

Not if your contractor had you first sign a 15 page contract that commits you to whatever costs they dream up and requires forced arbitration by a corporate friendly firm when any dispute arises.

Because that's somehow normal in today's tech world.

[wing-_-nuts]

Slightly OT, but I've always taken a dim view of this sort of thing for consumers because the parties are never at equal parity, either in ability to understand the legalese they're agreeing to, or the ability to seek alternatives.

Legal contracts for consumers should be written at whatever the prevailing reading level is, and the government should step in the more monopolistic position a company is in.

It infuriates me to no end how preferential government is towards corporations vs individuals.

[timeinput]

Give me all your data and money plzthx

Dictated but not read,

big company

Alternatively (in emoji description form):

floppy disk, bar chart, right arrow, brain, money with wings, pointing finger, slightly smiling face

[sdevonoes]

So if their TOS say they can also rape my cat, then I cannot do anything about it, right? Ridiculous

[jubilanti]

In jurisdictions where beastiality is legal, then yes, from the libertarian perspective, that's all freedom of contract, baby. I'm not defending either beastiality or libertarianism, but the logic is that you don't want the government deciding what two private entities can and can't freely agree to.

We're pretty far from the Lochner era in the US, where even minimum wage laws were held to be unconstitutional violations of a very broad view of freedom to contract. But it is still a principle in most legal system.